Monday, January 18, 2010

Tomorrow registered voters in Massachusetts have the opportunity to go to the polls to vote in the special election being held to decide who should replaced recently deceased Senator Edward Kennedy in the United States Senate. Some polls indicate that Scott Brown, the Republican nominee now has a slight edge over the Democrat Martha Coakley. I know that people who visit this blog on a regular basis are likely to be deeply concerned about the surrender of liberty that is now far advanced in the U.S. Some will surely be tempted to join the Hallelujah chorus GOP choir director Michael Steele will surely orchestrate should Brown win the vote. Before they do, I hope they will consider the following information posted on Brown's campaign site regarding his stand on issues that are critical to the restoration of America's liberty in principle and in fact:

Abortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Education
I am passionate about improving the quality of our public schools. Accountability and high standards are paramount. I support choice through charter schools, as well as the MCAS exam as a graduation requirement. I have worked to ensure that all children have access to a quality education. I am a strong advocate for the METCO program, which provides lower income students with broader educational opportunities.

Marriage
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.

This information supports the conclusion that Scott Brown is not pro-life. Though he pays lip service to choice in education, he gives priority to "accountability and high standards", buzzwords for an approach that leaves control of education in the hands of government, rather than where it belongs, in the hands of those who exercise parental responsibility. His professed beliefs about marriage ring hollow against the backdrop of actual events in Massachusetts, where he has said "the issue is settled... and he respects the decision to allow gay marriages."

The imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts was not based on "the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their representatives." It was the result of a judicial opinion thereafter imposed by the fiat order of then Massachusetts Governor Romney. In doing so Romney ignored the fact, clearly noted in the opinion itself, that it had no force of law unless and until the legislature chose to enact it.

On his site Brown also says that he is "opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in the Congress and will vote against it." Yet in almost the same breath he says that "in Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law." Now the 2006 legislation signed into law by then Governor Romney included a provision that required all Massachusetts residents to purchase health issuance, and provided for government funding of abortions (state funded $50 co-pay abortions for those who qualified.) In both respects, therefore, Scott Brown supports in substance two aspects of Obama's health care proposal that have been most troubling to conservatives. One casts aside the principle that limits government's power to dictate the economic decisions of the individual. The other uses government power to implicate all individuals in a practice that for many violates a paramount rule of conscience while overturning the doctrine of unalienable rights that is the basis for republican government (i.e., limited government based upon the consent of the governed.)

As far as I can tell from his campaign site, I agree with Scott Brown on a majority of other issues of major concern to the country. If I subscribed to Michael Steele's absurd "80-20" approach to voting, I would heartily encourage Massachusetts voters to support him. Readers of this blog know that I do not agree with Steele. It makes no sense to trust one's health to a doctor who rightly prescribes remedies 90% of the time, when the remaining 10% includes inevitably fatal drugs or procedures. Brown errs on key issues that involve just such fatally flawed positions. Of course the victims of his errors include not just individuals, but the soul and liberty of the nation.

Scott Brown's candidacy typifies the fatal flaw the Republican Party label now represents. Though in fact opposed to Obama on the details of some policies, on issues essential to the survival of liberty he actually embraces the fatally flawed departure from moral and political principle that clears the way for those who wish to destroy the moral and institutional foundations of constitutional government. The label promises remedies, but the bottle contains a few sugarcoated poison pills in key areas.

Some people have suggested to me that Joseph Lewis Kennedy (not part of the Kennedy clan, a libertarian running as an independent) offers a better alternative. Because of his name he may be siphon support from the Democrat among ignorant voters who think they're supporting one of their clan idols. But this Kennedy appears to embrace the brand of libertarianism that, by failing to defend the moral foundations of liberty, promotes self-destructive licentiousness instead.

I have pondered and written extensively on the "lesser of evils" arguments that supposedly justify supporting candidates like Scott Brown. I invite readers to consider my response. Start with the essay In Good Conscience that I wrote in the context of the 2008 election. The essays I have written about Michael Steele's flawed approach further develop and apply my thinking. To find them, just use the search box in the upper left hand corner at the very top of this page to run a search on 'Michael Steele'.

If there were a real conservative in the race in Massachusetts people in the "lesser of evil' crowd would say he or she had no chance of winning. Of course, as long as we allow their arguments to prevent moral conservatives from uniting beyond what they truly believe, the spoiler effect of the Republican Party means that we will never know. The "lesser evil" drives out the greater good, leaving us with no choice but evil in some guise. I suspect that the conservative plurality would win in really contested three way races, even in a State like Massachusetts.

I know many voters who profess Christian faith who would rejoice to see that outcome. They would thank God for the miracle. The sad fact though is that their own lack of courage and conviction prevents it from happening. Faith can move mountains, but only after those who profess faith allow it to move their own hearts. I pray that the Massachusetts situation isn't a harbinger of the 2010 elections, for that would mean a strong showing by the GOP that left us with a bunch of national legislators who don't disagree with Obama about the immoral, liberty killing, socialist cliff we're driving over. They just think we ought to use a different vehicle and drive toward the deadly drop at a slower speed. Unfortunately, in what now is the ever shorter run, that leaves constitutional liberty just as dead and gone.

Update: (1/18/2010, 11:04 PM)- Scott Brown's stated intentions seem to justify my position. Consider what he says in this article in the Boston Herald. It's worth reading all the way through. Quite an eye opener. The GOP sure needs another Senator who'll vote for judges like Sotomayor. That's alright, since Brown says he'd vote for a pro-life nominee, (whom Obama is sure to propose someday.) How admirably even handed of him! Of course he may have spoken as he did just to curry favor with Democrat voters. If so, who's he lying to- them or the conservatives so anxious to get him elected? But why worry? There's a chance he'll betray the other guys rather than be true to his own stated convictions.
Sure, and the name Arlen Specter rings no bells.

15
comments:

I agree. During the presidential election I felt the difference between the two major was one was on steroids and the other was not. So I cast my vote for the candidate whom I felt best represented what I believe in and I am writing on his site.

Like Alan, I don't like to support pro-abort, pro-homosexual RINOs. Unlike Alan, when faced with 3 pro-abort candidates, I would select the one I felt would do the least amount of damage. I would do my best to educate him about abortion, homosexuality, and other social ills. But I cannot see wasting my vote on a write-in name, or not voting at all. No matter what you do, MA is going to have a pro-abort Senator. I guess I'm a realist not an idealist.

I do not know how much unexpired time there is left on Teddy Kennedy's term. Perhaps one could hope when this seat comes around again for re-election, maybe there will be a REAL conservative in the hunt.

I was truly confused about this situation until I viewed it this way: If this guy was in Texas and I could vote for him I would not on principal even if it meant he lost. Why do I support his campaign because he is in Boston?

They're all corrupt and dwell in darkness. Look no futher than Nancy, Harry, Barney, Hillary,...... The republicans fare only slightly better, and thats because a very few skew the mean.

I wouldn't vote for him. I voted for McCain and I'm still dirty from it.

Hey, Dave, if Scott Brown were running in Kansas he would be soundly defeated (as would the spineless democrat and nutty libertarian). BUT, there would be a better choice on the ballot than Scott Brown. Remember that this race resides in Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in the union. As distasteful as homosexual marriage and abortion are, there are other considerations. Seeing that they are going to have a pro-abortion senator no matter what, I would weigh the benefit/risk ratio on shaving one vote off the dems "filibuster proof" majority. Of course, with Olympia Snowe that may not matter. I would vote for the one who could do the least damage or most good. My husband would draw his line in the sand and write in his own name. He would like to take his chances with the democrat, hoping that MA would get a better conservative candidate the next time around. That's a valid analysis, too.

Not sure why Alan Keyes waited until January 18 to publish this. We all knew Brown wasn't a rock-ribbed Conservative and just want to do the only thing we can at this point to avoid another Teddy Kennedy clone.

The last time I voted for the lesser of two evils, McCain, will be the last time I vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm fed up with holding my nose and stifling the gag reflex. After struggling with the idea I've come to the conclusion that a somewhat passive position is preferrable to an active support of evil.

There are at least 2 reasons:

One, it makes no sense to vote for a candidate who supports child sacrifice (with very few restrictions) and the abomination known as sodomy. He also supports state socialism. Can someone please tell me how such a position is so much better than national socialism?

Two, not only does it confirm the status quo, it embeds it. When will we learn those who espouse God-given rights and the natural law can never be taken seriously so long as we continue to compromise our core beliefs. We will be taken for granted, but we won't be taken seriously. Recent history is proof enough.

I know, the old argument goes something like "If we don't do something national socialism will destroy America." Yes, and your point is? I don't mean to sound heartless, for I know there will be great suffering. But don't we as a nation deserve a great chastisement? 50 million+ innocent and defenseless children of God have been slaughtered at the altar of Choice. And we still, stupidly, place our trust and hope in people. Corrupt people who are a part of a corrupt system.

No. No more big tents and no more excuses. It's time to pray and time to fast. Then, perhaps, if we stop leaning unto our own understanding, Godly people will present for leadership a Godly leader.

I have a rather cynical view of this election and political parties in general. My belief is that when one identifies to an extraordinary degree with one "party," they are no longer objective. They are bound by whatever the group embraces. In other words, a sort of group-think, which to me is very dangerous.

There has been one good thing come out of the Obama presidency. Conservatives are now beginning to wake up and unite. I agree with you Mr. Keyes in that Brown is not a true conservative, but at least he is not a Reid rubber stamp like Kay Hagan in my state. I am not just praying but I am working to bring the GOP back together under the conservative banner. This will not be easy because Bush did so much damage it will take years of work to undo. Be sure it will not happen overnight. If Brown wins the election I will consider it a victory, however small, but a victory none the less.

I find nothing objectionable in what Brown states as his position. True, he leaves unsaid much that would probably be controversial, but such is the essential nature of electoral politics. You avoid talking about anything that would make anyone uncomfortable.

There was (perhaps) a day when the American people as a whole would have been uncomfortable voting for the sort of people who now dominate their government. I imagine it was once common sense to acknowledge that liars and thieves with no moral scruples must not be entrusted with the powers of government. Or even to understand that the best security from tyranny is careful and consistent limitation of those powers.

You live not in such time. Today, the conservative answer is to prepare to defend what is precious to you with the interposition of your own flesh and blood. This is not a pleasant answer to hear. Some may call it the counsel of despair. But the truth is that if you do not prepare to defend yourselves now there is no hope. Americans have always before understood that their natural right to provide for their personal defense was fully compatible with and protected by their government. If you are now forced to choose between standing ready to defend yourselves and full participation in the political process...then one of them is no longer worth doing.

Well, it is the day after the election & MA Senator Brown is now US Senator Brown.

I understand the "lesser of two evils" thing, and honestly I think MANY Americans do, but if there is no other choice? I mean really... If you have two choices and one distraction, you just write in a vote? And let the rest of the loony tunes in this country RUN THE COUNTRY?

How about offer a VIABLE candidate. Where is an American that realizes that GOD gave them the SAME AMOUNT OF BRAINS that HE gave these repulsive thieves that run our government now?!?!?

People who want to make a change need to start planning and STOP WAITING UNTIL THE DAY OR TWO BEFORE AND ELECTION TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

If you (anyone reading this) wants to run for office in 2012, DO IT NOW. Don't wait until the election season roles around. Then again, who but a crook WANTS to sit in a hall filled with vipers all day long????

At first I was opposed to Alan's comment. Then I read the article he suggested. I guess I have been beguiled by the fact that Mass. could actually LOSE Teddy's seat. I have been drunk with the idea that the Dems will lose the super-majority that they cheated to get (see Minnesota). I see now that Brown is no conservative and no one I want in office. But I also see that he prevents an ultra-liberal super majority. That alone makes his election worth it. May God bring about a day when our hope will not be found in charlatan's who may diminish evil, but in men and women of character who openly stand against it!

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.

Terry Lakin explains seeking Obama eligibility proof

FEATURED LINK

Support This Site

Friends of Liberty:

The content I share on Loyal To Liberty takes a good deal of time and effort to prepare. It's offered in the hope that it will prove helpful to people trying to think through the challenges of faithful citizenship during this time of deep crisis for the republican form of government in the United States.

The site is, as it were, freeware, but of course its maintenance and efforts like the pursuit of the facts about Obama's eligibility eat up a lot of man-hours. Your donation will help me and those who work with me. So please click the button below and help out to whatever extent you can. No amount is too small. When everyone chips in, the 'widow's mite' is mighty. Thank you and Godspeed.(If you would rather send a check or money order make it out to Alan Keyes and send it to: Alan Keyes, PO Box 83759, Gaithersburg, MD 20883.)

THOUGHTLET-The Enemy of my Enemy is ?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I've never been sure the old maxim made much sense. It gives your enemies rather too much control over the identification of your friends. What's more, it allows people who really aren't your friends to identify themselves as such just by opposing your enemies. Doesn't that make it easier for your enemies to plant agents in your midst with no more effort than it takes to stage a phony brawl?Because they live in such a hostile media environment, conservatives are all too willing to embrace any media voice that seems to take on their left wing opponents. But this means that at critical moments (particularly when it comes to personnel choices) they will be susceptible to information provided by people who have only been fighting with their enemies in order to get into a better position to do in the people whose sincerity, ability and leadership offer conservatives the greatest promise of success.In this regard I have observed that the most important information conservatives can get from Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel is silence: the things and people Fox positively ignores. You can be sure someone you know to be conservative is standing firm for what's right when you can't remember the last time you saw or heard anything positive about them on Fox News. Think of all the reporting they've done on the issue of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency.Listen to the silence. Better yet, learn from it.

Visit Me on Facebook

THOUGHTLET "A little thought (that) goes a long way."

During my service as an Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State under President Reagan, a quiet but constant tug of war went on between the Reagan conservatives and the Bush Republicans, though supposedly all of us were pulling in the same direction.My brief as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations (IO- the bureau that, among other things, keeps track of the goings-on at the United Nations)included implementing Reagan's policy of withholding U.S. contributions to the UN until real management reforms were agreed upon and carried forward.I also got involved with issues that reflected Reagan's principled pro-life stands, and his strong commitment to defend Israel from the Arab inspired lynch mob more or less permanently on call throughout the UN system during those years.

Apparently one of the more polite terms of opprobrium the Bush forces used to pan conservatives like me was that we were excessively "ideological".To tell the truth, I always wore the intended slight as a badge of honor, sinceit signified theirreaction to my consistent efforts to make sure my actions served the ideas and principles Reagan stood for.

Meanwhile whether in or out of power the leftists who control the Democrat party have had no qualms about being "excessively ideological."While the Bush Republicans obligingly kept real conservatives running in place throughout their years of pre-eminence (while sopping them periodically with rhetoric and phony gestures of support), the Democrats looked for ways to promote their agenda of abortion, state atheism, and the erosive destruction of the traditional family (It's the major obstacle to totalitarian government control of the society.)Now that the leftists are surging with confidence, Obama shows no qualms about promoting "excessively ideological" extremists like Chas Freeman and Kathleen Sebelius to positions of controlling authority in the areas where they can do the most harm (from a conservative point of view.)Instead of running in place, they're poised to rush forward, like a good running back exploiting the chink of daylight that signals the way to at least a first down and who knows what more beyond that.

When are conservatives going to wake up and ponder the fact that the acronym for Running In Place is- R.I.P.

Share the Blessings of Liberty

THOUGHTLET

As I consider the reaction to my statement that Obama is a communist, I realize how thoroughly the Obama faction's media claque takes advantage of the ignorance even of those who are supposed to be educated and sophisticated spokespeople for conservative views. In this respect I am somewhat disadvantaged by my relatively small stake in this ignorance when it comes to political theory and ideology. For instance, people tend to associate the term "communist" with the violent takeover of government and society. Yet a thoroughly committed communist like Italy's Antonio Gramsci developed an understanding of the nature of political control, and therefore the path to power over a society, far more sophisticated than Marx's economic determinism. (Or was it in fact a more sophisticated understanding of economics?) It was therefore better suited to understanding and exploiting the "ideological" (i.e., spiritual and moral) vulnerabilities of the opponents of communism. In particular, his theories allowed for far greater use of cultural influences (the news and entertainment media, churches and other religious institutions, movements like "gay rights" that contribute to the destruction of moral institutions like the family, etc.) than some people associate with the term "communism". They helped later leftists to understand, explain and avoid (by learning from and adapting the enemy's tactics) defeats like those that fascism inflicted on mid-twentieth century communism in Italy and elsewhere.Reading Gramsci, one senses that he is looking at the intellectual framework for the Obama faction's secret strategic plan. As Sherlock Holmes knew, there's sometimes no hiding place more secure than one that is in plain sight. Especially in an era when the leftist takeover of education produces fewer and fewer people in each generation who bother to read books, especially the ones without pictures in them. (There's a good summary of Gramsci's thinking at http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-gram.htm)

THOUGHTLET

Apparently most of the people in Congress who voted on the so-called stimulus package had no time to read it, even superficially. That might seem like fodder for a late night comedy routine, until it occurs to you to wonder who did read it? After all, if the elected representatives of the people are just rubber stamping legislation prepared for them by others, its drafters are the ones dictating the decision. Congress sinks into the role reserved for the People's Congresses in places like North Korea or the now defunct Soviet Union. How quickly the substance of constitutional self-government is being turned into the perfunctory sham characteristic of stolid party dictatorships ruled from the background by a handful of unaccountable little despots.

How many Americans wake up every day longing to live under party dictators, worshiping at the altar of a propagandized personality cult, in a world where party hacks offer the only hope of relief from bureaucratic tyranny? All in exchange for a surfeit of meaningless sex and the license to kill your unwanted offspring.

I used always to think of places under communist yoke as regions languishing under perpetually cloudy skies. Actually though, it wasn't the sun's light it cut off, but the light of true human personality. Would any sane people exchange even the worst risks of life in freedom for such soul stifling banality? Will we?

Liberty Loyalists

Subscribe To Loyal To Liberty

THOUGHTLET

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's not a thought likely to occur to anyone thinking about the banking system these days. It's broke alright. Insolvency is the word of the day, along with that other word, nationalization. Funny how so many people who think the nation state has effectively ceased to exist when it comes to borders and immigration suddenly rediscover its powers when it's time to take over the banks.

"But Alan," you protest "we badly need a solution." Which, I reply, is not a good reason to accept a bad one. In fact , if things have gotten as bad as they say, maybe we should step back so as to let our thinking leap forward.

True, If it ain't broke, you don't fix it. But if it's really broke, you don't fix it either, you throw it away and replace it with something that works better. Instead of taking the bad logic of a failed centralized banking system to its logical conclusion (total centralization), replace the logic with something more suited to the twenty-first century. The twentieth century was all about bigger, more regulated and extensive organization. The hallmark of the twenty-first is the network, the model work-in-progress of which is the internet. It depends on decentralized, individual units, that reach out and form communities based on direct interaction and mutual assessment, rather than a centrally determined distribution of information (like a central bank's fixing the interest rate.)

If the present banking system is failing- let it fail. That's the first step in preparing the way for the emergence of twenty-first century financial networks. Instead of pretending that bankrupt governments can magically save a bankrupt system, accept the fact that the financial Titanic is sinking. Get people out of it, and use what resources we have to construct and launch the fleet of lifeboats in which they can distance themselves from the vortex it causes as it goes down. What I think we'll discover is that the new system we need will emerge from the resulting fleet, as we use twenty-first century tools to turn it into a floating net that won't be susceptible to the cascading disasters of the obsolete vessel. This deserves longer thought, which I give it in the essay Real Change Step Two: Replacing the Federal Reserve.

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

THOUGHTLET

I think it's not an accident that the American founders spoke of the people as a body (that is an organic whole), but the leftist proto-totalitarians that tutor socialists like Obama speak of them as "the masses." A mass is composed of conceptually identical parts, whereas the body is an organic whole in which each part is defined and differentiated by its individual purpose with respect to the whole. Is this why there are so many examples of totalitarian regimes that treat people as if they are mounds of dirt to be shaped and repressed, used or discarded (killed) without respect for their individuality? This totalitarian mentality finds a counterpart in the approach that claims to deal with human affairs scientifically, on the assumption that people are no different than other merely physical things.

Here is an audio compilation of the Thoughtlets I post every now and then. I'm making them available as a podcast at http://loyaltoliberty.podbean.com/. They are also accessible as an audio feed. Visit the site, and spread the word. The little thoughts are now consumable as little soundbites. They could be a great way to introduce Loyal to Liberty to people you know.

THOUGHTLETS (Podcast)

About Your Host

For a long while I have been involved in government, politics and citizen activism. I am Christian, Catholic, Pro-life and pro-liberty. I am sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the republican form of government it establishes. I uphold and seek to preserve the sovereignty of the American people, and to restore respect for the principles set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. In light of those principles, I believe the top priority of our political life is to restore respect for the existence and authority of the Creator, God and to rebuild the moral conscience and character of the American people on the basis of that respect; For God, Liberty and the Constitution.

THOUGHTLET

What signals the difference between a "socialist" and a "communist"? It's the gradual repression of political and civil liberty culminating in the open prosecution and suppression of dissident views. But this suppression cannot come about until a monopoly has been established over access to the seats of government executive and decision making power. The key manifestation of this monopoly is of course some form of party dictatorship.

Aside from all the evidence in his known background, associates, policy preferences and political actions one of the main reasons I make bold to call Obama a communist is his grab for unchecked partisan control over the conduct of the next census. Skillful manipulation of the census could make the decisive contribution to establishing an electorally unchallengeable party monopoly, which would then provide the basis for consolidating party dictatorship. If such dictatorship were not part of their agenda, the Obama faction would leave ultimate oversight of the census process where the Constitution places it, in the hands of the legislative branch. As it clearly is part of their agenda, only ignorance or willful stupidity blinds people to Obama's ambition to establish a better tailored version of Soviet-style government in the U.S.

Of course, there may be another name for what keeps some of the so-called Republicans from speaking out about it. Could it be cowardice?

Copyright Regulations

All material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog.

Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty

You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog.

Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website.

Only excerpts of less than 100 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included.

Noncommercial Usage. You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes.

Derivative Works. Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made.

If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website,permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.

THOUGHTLET

Everyone's fussing over whether the Alleged Usurper's stimulus plan will help or hurt the economy. Are they missing the point? Massive taxpayer resources are being pumped into Obama's powerbase. His cohorts grow stronger, while the larger economic impact of the plan makes everyone else weaker. Not much of a recovery plan, but a great strategy for securing power.

Then there are all those Hamas loving Palestinians he's using taxpayer money to bring to the U.S. After 9/11 the Palestinians danced in their streets. This time they won't have far to go to dance on our graves.